Gov. Bush’s Recipe for GOP Success: Power to the People

As he moves closer to a presidential campaign, Texas Gov. George W. Bush is formulating an agenda that would turbocharge conservative efforts to shift power away from Washington, even while giving ground on polarizing social issues that have hurt the GOP politically.

In an interview with The Times, Bush called for shifting authority on domestic issues such as education and health care not only to states but to individuals and faith-based charities. “In many ways,” he said at the state Capitol here, “public policy ought to bypass all government and focus on individuals.”

But in the wake of the Colorado high school massacre, Bush offered a more tempered message on gun control, indicating flexibility on questions such as raising the legal age of handgun ownership. That echoed his efforts earlier this year to soften his stance on abortion by questioning how feasible it is to pursue a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure, even though he personally supports such a restriction.

Though he is not expected to formally declare his candidacy until later this year, Bush has emerged as the clear front-runner in the Republican presidential race, holding a wide lead in fund-raising, endorsements and the polls. Yet, because he has decided not to campaign nationally until after the Texas legislative session concludes late this month, his views on a range of issues are only slowly emerging, primarily in media interviews.

His conversation with The Times reinforced the sense that Bush, as a national candidate, would present the same kind of ideologically nuanced platform he’s relied on in Texas--a posture dubbed “compassionate conservatism.”

That approach, while leaving him vulnerable to criticism from the left and right on specific issues, could give him the potential to reach beyond his party’s traditional base of voters--much like President Clinton did.

Despite all the political advantages Bush has amassed, his opponents believe he may be most vulnerable to questions about whether he has the experience to serve as president. Bush has contributed to these doubts, especially by initially appearing uncertain how to respond to the crisis in Kosovo. (Eventually, he endorsed the NATO airstrikes, as well as ground troops, if military advisors deem them necessary.)

“We have kind of identified what may be the Achilles’ heel of the great Bush juggernaut, which is that the candidate may not be up to being president,” says Brian Kennedy, campaign manager for Lamar Alexander, one of Bush’s competitors for the nomination.

In The Times interview, Bush bristled at such criticism from his rivals. “The interesting point,” he said, “is they don’t get to decide” whether he is ready for the White House.

But Bush, whose total experience in elected office consists of his four-plus years as Texas governor, quickly agreed that proving he is qualified “is the fundamental task” he will face when his formal campaigning starts with scheduled trips to Iowa and New Hampshire in mid-June. A trip to California is also likely later that month.

After spending weeks studying issues with a small faculty of advisors, Bush, 52, projects the mood of a college student who’s spent too much time in the library and is eager to get outside--in his case, to “start shaking people’s hands and look them in the eye.”

He said he would unveil his agenda on his own timetable. But in a wide-ranging discussion, he gave clear signals of his intentions--if not always his detailed proposals--on several issues.

On education, Bush broke new ground with a position midway between GOP congressional leaders and Clinton. Republicans have called for converting dozens of federal education programs into a massive block grant states could spend any way they choose; Clinton wants to require that states undertake a series of “accountability” reforms or face the loss of federal funds.

By contrast, Bush proposed that states receive more flexibility in using federal money--but only if they establish a local testing system to measure the performance of students and schools. That might imply more federal pressure on local education decisions than many conservatives support, but Bush said: “A Republican candidate should feel comfortable in insisting we have a result-oriented system.”

On trade, Bush rejected the protectionist views that have shown increasing strength inside his party. The governor, a leading supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, insisted: “It’s important for the next president to be a strong free trader and have the backbone to stare down constituencies” that oppose that policy.

On taxes and regulation, he took more conventional Republican positions, promising less of both. Without offering specifics, he said his tax plan would be aimed “to enhance productivity for high-paying . . . jobs.” Another tax proposal, Bush said, is new incentives for investment in inner-cities beyond those already achieved by the Clinton administration.

At the heart of Bush’s emerging domestic agenda appears to be a series of reforms that he argues would shift power and initiative from government to individuals. In the interview, Bush:

* Endorsed medical savings accounts--tax-favored accounts that individuals can use to buy catastrophic health insurance;

* Called for Social Security reform that would divert part of workers’ payroll taxes into individual accounts they could invest themselves;

* Promised a major push to encourage the spread of vouchers that parents could use to pay for private schools.

The common principle, Bush said, is that Washington and the states “ought to start thinking about empowering individuals to make decisions.”

Both in that broad theme and in specific policies, Bush’s empowerment agenda essentially replicates ideas that Steve Forbes, one of his principal rivals, has advocated since his first presidential campaign in 1996. But Bush would give this agenda his own stamp. He stresses proposals to transfer authority from government to faith-based charities that would deliver a wide array of social services to the poor, from job training to drug counseling.

“This ultimately is going to change America,” said Bush, who has emphasized partnerships with such religion-based groups in Texas.

The possibilities and perils of Bush’s ideological balancing act were most clearly evident in his discussion of the Littleton, Colo., tragedy.

On questions relating to the influence of popular culture, Bush said he had no problem with Clinton’s initiative to require a V-chip in televisions that parents could use to block objectionable material. But he signaled a willingness to expand the availability of prayer in schools and urged intensified government efforts to encourage sexual abstinence.

He also said the kind of “tools” for parents Clinton has proposed (such as the V-chip and a television rating system) are less important than cultural changes.

“The fundamental question is going to be, can America rededicate itself to parenting as the No. 1 priority for all of us?” he argued.

On gun control, Bush walked a narrow line. On the one hand, he opposed repeal of the 1994 assault weapon ban and indicated his openness to Clinton’s call to raise the age of legal handgun ownership from 18 to 21. “I need to think through that,” he said, “but I don’t have great heartburn [over it] initially.”

But Bush, who signed a Texas law in 1995 allowing residents to carry concealed weapons, opposed Clinton’s call for reinstituting three-day waiting periods for gun purchases, saying he preferred instant background checks. And while he said he could support national legislation to extend such instant checks to purchases at unregulated gun shows, he’s made no effort to support a state bill that would have done just that in Texas. That bill died recently in a legislative committee.

In a measure of the cross-fire he can expect on many fronts, Bush’s support for national regulation of gun shows disappointed some gun owner advocates in Texas, even as it immediately drew fire as insincere from Nina Butts, the lobbyist for Texans Against Gun Violence.

“It’s utterly bogus to say it has to be at the national level,” she charged. “We have the opportunity to do something right now in Texas, where we have more gun shows than any other state.”

*

Further analysis from Ronald Brownstein on the pending presidential candidacy of Texas Gov. George W. Bush is available in audio on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/bush